the ‘frontier’ speaks back: two australian artists working

PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, July 2013. ISSN: 1449-2490; http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/portal PORTAL is published under the auspices of UTSePress, Sydney, Australia.

The ‘Frontier’ Speaks Back: Two Australian Artists Working in Paris and London Catherine Speck, University of Adelaide

The two women artists who are the subject of this paper, Hilda Rix and Nora Heysen,

worked from the 1900s to the 1940s in cosmopolitan Paris and London, at a time when

it was almost obligatory to do so. This was part of the career pathway of any aspiring

artist then, and as long-time ‘expatriate’ Geoffrey Batchen commented recently,

‘Australians of ambition have always left to work and gain experience overseas. This is

especially so for our better artists’ (2007: 11). While that is so, it was Australian women

artists in particular who circumvented a restrictive masculinism in local visual arts

patronage, and headed overseas to develop their modern practice in this era. This

expatriate group included not just Rix and Heysen, but Thea Proctor, Margaret Preston,

Gladys Reynell, Dorrit Black, Grace Crowley and Anne Dangar, amongst others, and it

is widely acknowledged that these women, in the main, ushered in modernism to

Australia. This situation of women being the purveyors of modern style is a unique

Australian phenomenon linked to travel, expatriatism and suffrage (Jordan 1994: 30).

Artists like Hilda Rix and Nora Heysen belonged to this cross-generational group of

Australian women who travelled and immersed themselves in international modernism,

an urban and metropolitan movement premised on the ideals of authenticity, autonomy

and originality (Meesham & Sheldon 2001: 1). International mobility defines

engagement with this strand of modernism; hence the expatriate process of artists living

outside their country of birth to complete their training, further their career or gain new

experience was fundamental to their careers as modern artists.

Speck The ‘Frontier’ Speaks Back

PORTAL, vol. 10, no. 2, July 2013. 2

Expatriatism was a liberating period for women, especially women artists, and the

strategies colonial women employed in living and working in metropolitan centres such

as London have been explored in recent times (Woollacott 2001). However, the

language used to describe it as fuelled by ‘intellectual frustration’ and ‘alienation’ from

one’s country’ (Alomes 1999: 8); and as rather quaintly ‘taking classes overseas’ as a

prelude to doing the ‘real’ work done back home, has masked key features of time

spent in the metropolis. The first is that insufficient attention has been given to the work

artists produced elsewhere. In turn, the process by which artists working in the

metropoles were transformed by this experience, has been insufficiently explored.

Moreover, the language of expatriatism as a deliberate turning of one’s back on country,

rather than that of a dialectic process between home and away, has meant that the nature

of modernism, as an international movement spread unevenly between the centres and

peripheries, in which artists frequently moved from periphery to centre and back again,

has been ill appreciated (Smith 2007: 7). Current transnational approaches to writing

about artists and art histories are beginning to focus on the reality of this, and how

artists from the mid-nineteenth-century operated in a more international ethos due to

the ‘growing infrastructure of international congresses, exhibitions and organisations’

(Brockington 2009: 7). This paper probes how just two of these women artists from

differing generations and in differing locales, Hilda Rix in Paris and Nora Heysen in

London, tapped into this environment, and how their work changed.1

Once in metropolitan centres, both women artists immersed themselves in

cosmopolitanism, an outlook and condition that rests in the social imaginary, and does

not operate in opposition to or transcendence of nationalism (Calhoun 2008a: 433).

Cosmopolitanism was a central tenet in turn-of-the-century modernism, and it was an

early form of globalism involving ‘the movement of objects, signs and people across

regions and intercontinental spaces,’ with ‘patterns of reciprocal interaction’ developing

between those in the cultural centres and those coming to such centres (Held, McGrew,

Goldblatt & Perraton 1999: 328). What writers now refer to as a global consciousness

was a feature of life then, due to transnational secular ideologies such as Marxism,

liberalism and science, as well as international conflicts and new international

communication systems (Cuddy-Keane 2003: 539–40). It constituted ‘an outlook of

cultural open-ness and receptivity to difference,’ it signalled a ‘direct connection

1 Hilda Rix Nicholas worked in Paris as Hilda Rix: this was prior to her marriage.



between the individual and the world as a whole’ (Calhoun 2008a: 442), and it was

facilitated by engaging in transnational networks with fellow cosmopolitans. This form

of cosmopolitanism, grounded in modernism with its various inflections in centres and

peripheries, has taken on a somewhat different usage in postcolonial discourse

(Meskimmon 2011: 6–7, Calhoun 2008b: 105).2

Expatriate women artists in the modern era shifted in and out of this complex entity of

cosmopolitanism. It was a role to be performed, what Amelia Jones and Andrew

Stephenson describe as ‘an aggressive resurfacing of the artist’s persona through the

enactment of her or his body in or as the work of art’ (1999: 4). It was also a means of

making contact, and enabling new forms of practice. Paris, as a major metropolitan

centre, affected the making of art because artists working there from numerous nations

had consciously moved away from all that was comfortable and familiar. These

metropolitan influences played on Hilda Rix in Paris and Nora Heysen in London. Both

found their identities in these two cities more fluid; they engaged with new styles and

new subjects, and turned away from questions of their own nationality towards

performative notions of hybrid individual identities. Their cosmopolitan experiences

were almost incomprehensible to their peers who had stayed home and forged local

inflections of modernism disembodied from metropolitan culture.

Hilda Rix was in Belle Époque Paris from 1907 to 1914, having moved there with her

mother and sister where they soaked up cosmopolitan life. The city was a beacon to

artists of differing nationalities and modern persuasions, Americans being the largest

non-French contingent. Many academies were on offer, and artists’ studios were

purpose-built for the foreign artists market, so expatriates transformed its art scene

(Wilson 2002: 51). The Rix family lived in a pension at 7 rue Joseph Bara in

fashionable Montparnasse, an area studded with artists’ studios and ateliers. Within a

year Hilda Rix had taken classes at two of the most well-known Parisian art schools

frequented by the large population of expatriate artists, Académie Delécluse in late 1907

and Académie de la Grande Chaumière in 1908.

The cosmopolitan ethos with which she was confronted, one of freedom and

impulsiveness, initially unsettled her. Her restrictive colonial sensibilities caused her to

2 The contemporary usage of ‘cosmopolitanism’ extends these ideas across geographical, racial, national and religious borders and is infused with an ethics of responsibility within a world community.



question her new-found autonomy, and she even wrote to a friend, ‘one can do anything

on wants in France.’3 She was surrounded by a sophisticated and flamboyant lifestyle

and during the pre-war years, a smart set thrived on its internationalism. They enjoyed

the portraits of Sargent, the sculptures of Rodin, the music of Chopin, Schubert and

Grieg, the dancing of Madame Sadayakko and the Ballets Russe, and they wore dresses

by Worth and Paquin. Rix’s The pink scarf, 1913 [figure 1], which was painted in the

latter part of her Paris years, is framed around these cosmopolitan sensibilities of

Figure 1, Hilda Rix Nicholas, The pink scarf, 1913, oil on canvas, 80.5 x 65.0 cm, gift of Mrs Roy Edwards through the Art Gallery of South Australia Foundation 1993,

Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide.

3 Hilda Rix to Meg Line, 4 December 1907, Papers of Hilda Rix Nicholas, MS 9817, National Library of Australia. All subsequent letters cited from Hilda Rix are from this archive.



pleasure, leisure and beautiful surfaces. Its subject, a fashionably dressed woman, is an

overt display of the high life of Belle Époque Paris. It was painted when it was believed

such portrayals would give pleasure to the general public (Galbally 2004: 120). The

image is steeped in the Edwardian fascination with the reflective figure shown in

interior domestic space. This is what Ann Galbally calls ‘the subjectless subject,’ in

which the focus is on the figure, not as a psychological study but more ‘as

representative of a way of life’ (2004: 118). Rupert Bunny, also an Australian expatriate

artist in Belle Époque Paris, painted women in similar situations, but engaged in the

high culture pursuits of listening to music or reading poetry within the domestic arena,

whereas Rix’s woman is passive, posed, waiting, and contained. The filmy pink organza

scarf trailing around the beautifully adorned young woman frames her, and accentuates

her creamy off-the-shoulder gown. Her expansive uncovered back and shoulders are the

focus of the gaze. The decorative flowery wallpaper screen behind her again creates a

shallow space forcing the viewer’s eyes onto the subject herself.

Rix had a fascination with fancy dress and masquerade, an interest which was part of a

wider pre-war fascination with dress-up. Artists’ parties too were often fancy dress

affairs or costume balls.4 Anne Gray suggests that ‘artists wanted to show that art was

artifice, a separate realm from reality. But they were keen also to show that the life of

many around them was lived as a masquerade’ (2004: 60). While steeped in these

practices, Rix’s sumptuous and highly coloured and patterned La robe Chinoise, c.1913

[figure 2], also drew on the fashion for non-western dress. Both Hilda and her sister

Elsie enjoyed dressing up, Hilda even collected oriental costumes, but in a real sense

wearing the dress of ‘others’ took what was then widespread cultural colonisation a step

further to that of possession, and ‘reinforced hierarchies of power’ (Pigot 1994: 164).

The model is Hilda’s sister Elsie who projects a high sense of theatricality in her pose,

as if she is self-consciously wearing an exotic gown, head-dress and jewellery. She

prominently holds a bracelet and Chinese medallion for all to see. The bold outline

around the gown further defines the figure against the shallow background. The

dramatic lighting falls on the model’s face and robe, while the pose shows every aspect

of the gown to its utmost, harking back to what she learnt from Claudio Castelucho at

the Académie de la Grande Chaumière. This painting was exhibited at both the Société

des Artistes Français, and the Société des Peintres Orientalistes Français in 1914.

4 When Rix returned from Europe she brought back costumes she had collected on her travels.



Figure 2, Hilda Rix Nicholas, La robe Chinoise, c.1913, oil on canvas, 185.3 x 115 cm, State Art Collection, Art Gallery of Western Australia, purchased through

the Sir Claude Hotchin Art Foundation, Art Gallery of Western Australia Foundation, 1994.



The artist’s interest in the Orient was part of a larger fascination for ‘the exotic,’ which

manifested itself in a French fashion for the Oriental imaginary as subject matter in art

work. This in turn was underpinned by French colonialism in North Africa and the

Middle East, and supported by a dedicated society of French Orientalist Painters,

galleries and exhibitions. Thus while Orientalist art was shown unproblematically in

Paris, it nonetheless brought ‘the richness of colonised cultures to the attention of the

metropolitan public’ (Benjamin 2003: 62). These factors prompted Rix to travel to

Morocco in 1912 and again in 1914. She made her first visit with African-American

Henry Tanner, his wife and an extended group, and on the second occasion her sister

Elsie accompanied her. The location inspired her to capture the light and atmosphere of

life there. She also developed a great respect for the people whom she described as

beautiful and dignified (Rix 1914: 41). Soon after arriving in Tangier she wrote to her

friends that it was like being in dream: ‘I’m afraid to wake up in the morning and find it

all gone … it is more splendid than I thought … There is such quantity and richness of

wonderful picturesqness; everyway one turns the head there is a new picture.’ Rix

sketched mostly in the market place, the Soko, adjacent to her hotel where some were

happy to be portrayed, but others avoided the artist’s gaze. This was a safe area for

western woman to work in, and frequently the local people would gather around and

watch her at work. Two women in the market place, 1912–1914 [figure 3], is typical of

her work there. It is an impressionistic painting containing gestural features of the

figures, with few details, and space is flattened and compressed. The high-keyed light

shimmers. Rix studied the women carrying heavy loads on their backs, looking as she

said like ‘huge snails bent forward’ (Rix 1914: 35). The women are diminutive in size

but proud. The painting is a symphony in white light, and typifies John Pigot’s

observation: ‘North Africa’s brilliant light transformed and modernised her work (2000:

26).

Rix’s time in Paris had been a defining time. The liberties of Parisienne life shocked her

at first. The ‘cut-and-thrust’ of working under the US modernist teacher Richard Miller,

who was not always complimentary, meant she was always striving to improve. Her

comment of his criticism—‘if I’m successful with them won’t I jump for joy’—implies

many an occasion when she was not. Unfortunately her time in France was cut short by

the declaration of war in 1914, and from their summer base in Étaples she and her

family had to evacuate to Britain. Working in a cosmopolitan centre had transformed



Figure 3, Hilda Rix Nicholas, Two women in the market place, c.1912–1914, oil on canvas on board, 25.8 x 32.5 cm, purchased 1994, Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide.

her practice, but we look to Raymond Williams to explain the exact nature of this

change. He has observed that the ‘complex and open character’ of the major metropoles

differed greatly from provincial areas where there was a ‘persistence of traditional

social, cultural and intellectual forms’ (1992: 91). In his view the ‘complexity’ and

‘miscellaneity’ of this modern urban environment liberated artists and resulted directly

in changes in form:

Thus the key cultural factor of the modernist shift is the character of the metropolis … [and] its direct effect on form … this underlies in an obvious way, the elements of strangeness and distance, indeed alienation, which so regularly form part of the repertory. But the decisive aesthetic effect is at a deeper level. Liberated or breaking from their national or provincial cultures, placed in quite new relations to those other native languages or native visual traditions, encountering meanwhile a novel and dynamic common environment from which many of the older forms were obviously distant, the artists and writers and thinkers of this phase found the only commonality available to them: a community of the medium; of their own practices. (Williams 1992: 91–92)

This same phenomenon of the liberating character of the city applied to London, even

though the city itself was represented then as ‘home’ to Australians because it fell

within the spatial imaginary of the British Empire (Blunt & Dowling 2006: 143). Each



of Paris and London provided this spark of creativity for cosmopolitan artists removed

from provincial influences, with the only factor in common being their art practice. The

consequent feelings of alienation, lack of belonging and, paradoxically, freedom from

all ties saw artists making breakthroughs (Blazwick 2001: 9). These influences were

highly conducive to their making of modern art. Those in the cosmopolitan centres

found their identities more fluid, and they changed accordingly, and often radically.

Artists there engaged with new styles and new subjects in universal or cosmopolitan

spaces. They turned away from questions of their own nationality towards performative

notions of hybrid individual identities. Hence, London, as the heart of the Empire, was

only ever superficially familiar as ‘home.’ It operated at a deeper level as ‘strange’ and

thus worked to liberate many artists, including the Australian Nora Heysen.

She was in London from 1934 to 1937, arriving when the worst years of depression has

passed. Nora too worked in a cosmopolitan ethos, but one very different from Hilda Rix

in the Belle Époque. Heysen set out to find her own painting style, self-funded by sales

from a solo exhibition she held in Adelaide before leaving, and then from two loans

from her father. Prior to relocating to Dukes Lane in Kensington in 1934, she had lived

a very British-Australian life with her family at ‘The Cedars’ in Hahndorf. Her father,

the well-known artist Hans Heysen, subscribed to papers like the Illustrated London

News, corresponded with British artists, and recommended British works for acquisition

by the Art Gallery of South Australia.

However, her transition to her new life in London was confronting, as her Self-portrait,

1934 [figure 4], painted a few months into her first year there, shows. This modern and

visually arresting image of herself at 23 years of age feels like a statement made at the

beginning of a journey, knowing she must be self-reliant and prove herself, but unsure

what lies ahead. The brown jacket she is wearing underscores her aloneness; it seems to

sit on her shoulders as if to suggest she is dressed in one of her few possessions, ready

to confront the world.

This painting is about more than loneliness. It illustrates how the cosmopolitan

experience not only required immersion in metropolitan culture, which in itself requires

‘an outlook of … cultural openness’ (Calhoun 2008a: 442), but also that it involved

listening to criticism. Heysen’s first teacher at London’s Central School, Bernard



Figure 4, Nora Heysen, Self-portrait, 1934, oil on canvas, 60.8 x 53.5cm, purchased 1999, National Portrait Gallery.

Meninsky, was a highly respected modern artist who mixed with like-minded moderns

including Jacob Epstein, Lucien Freud and the Bloomsbury group (Tickner 2000: 149).

He told her that she had been taught incorrectly. His criticism struck at the core of her

confidence, and caused her to question her father’s tutelage. She described this incident

as ‘the worst most damning criticism I’ve ever had.’5 His harsh criticism was due to the

fact that each approached drawing from a different perspective. Meninsky, she said in a

letter, ‘draws with a heavy line and square modelling, handling the pencil like a pen,

whereas I draw with a single line and use shading to emphasise certain forms.’ Her style

had underpinned earlier and more conventional self-portraits like her 1933 pre-London

A portrait study, which had won her the South Australian Society of Arts Melrose Prize.

5 Nora Heysen to her parents, 12 November 1934, Hans Heysen Papers, MS 5073, National Library of Australia. All subsequent letters cited from her are from this archive.



Heysen was unsure whether to follow her own instincts or accept Meninsky’s advice.

She wrote home that her dilemma was that ‘he draws very well and I admire the solidity

and movement he gets, but I don’t want to draw like him.’ She did, however, take on

board some of his suggestions. The square modelling and sculptural solidity that were

his trademark style carried over into her 1934 Self-portrait. Two weeks after

Meninsky’s criticism, she had come to terms with his comments—‘I think I will gain

from his criticism, it hurts no-one to be pulled to pieces and thoroughly faulted’—while

again iterating her desire not to end up emulating his style. She was in a transitional

space, open to new ways, but still in the process of finding herself having moved away

from all that was familiar. As Iwona Blazwick comments, ‘it is a paradox of the

metropolis that its scale and heterogeneity can generate an experience both of

unbearable invisibility and liberating anonymity; of alienating disconnectedness, indeed

impotence; and of the possibility of unbounded creativity’ (2001: 9).

Heysen was very aware of the opportunities working in London offered. She spent long

hours drawing from the model at both art schools she attended, the Central School of

Arts and Crafts and Byam Shaw. When not enrolled, she hired a model. She worked in

still life, interiors and portraits, in each she was experimenting with light. By September

1935 she wrote home to her parents that she was now selecting modern frames for her

paintings, a veiled way of letting them know she was changing: ‘I’ll wonder what you

think of it. Probably think I’m going modern. I want things simple.’

Another major impetus to her art was meeting Orovida, daughter of Lucien Pissarro and

grand-daughter of Camille Pissarro,6 whom she initially met in the course of arranging

the purchase of Orovida’s Mother and son for her father Hans Heysen in 1935.7 That

financial transaction led to Orovida agreeing to look over Nora’s work of which she was

critical; she found it old fashioned. Nora wrote home to her father about Miss Pissarro’s

comments in October 1935:

She came in like a bomb dropped out of the blue—She slated me right and left—She said my paintings were muddy and 50 years behind time and advised me to change my palette—She admitted that I could draw and had talent but that is all she allowed me. She thinks I use too much brown and black and yellow ochre and keep my colour too low in tone—I who pride myself on my fresh bright clean colour! You can imagine my surprise on hearing that—She hates yellow ochre,

6 Orovida felt burdened by her artistic lineage and ceased using her family name Pissarro and used her given name Orovida until the 1940s. By then her father had died. 7 Hans Heysen was in London in 1934 and he saw this painting by Orovida at the 1934 Royal Academy exhibition, and decided to purchase it. He had an impressive art collection.



and I love it and use it in everything almost—that is where we disagreed. She likes the interior I have just finished, and thought it the best bit of work—I agree there. She gave me a list of colours, an entirely new palette—mostly of cadmiums, excluding ochre, black and browns.

Heysen duly went out and purchased the new colours suggested of ‘white, cadmium, red

and pale ultramarine, vert composé, cobalt and crimson,’ adding in her letter to her

father, ‘it is amazing the depth and richness of colour that can be got without using

brown or black.’ Those were the dark colours her father had taught her to use.

The consequent change in style from her new colours and approach is apparent in

Heysen’s self-portraits, which can be read as a coded language of defining herself as a

modern artist and modern woman. To mark her twenty-fifth birthday and her transition

to ‘womanhood,’ which she said had been hastened by ‘living here by myself in London

and making my own decisions,’ she painted a Self-portrait, 1936. She wrote home ‘I am

doing myself in a blue smock against the wall with my pink roses—the colour scheme is

beautiful and I hope to make something good out of it.’ Her use of paint is looser, with

broken areas of colour in the face and in the background. Her palette, tipped forward for

the viewer to inspect, shows her new colours on display. The subtext is that she has

gone well beyond her early training. By February of that year, Heysen reported home

that her new mentor Orovida was ‘partly condemning, partly encouraging,’ and that ‘she

likes the self-portrait, thinks it is far the best bit of painting I have ever done.’

She was moving from mimesis to a more expressive mode; and wrote home on Easter

Sunday 1936 that she wanted to abandon what she called a photographic outlook:

I feel in sympathy with the impressionists who wanted to break away from all the old traditions, and find a new way to express beauty in nature. I feel I am getting nearer to that. I ultimately want losing a little of my hitherto rather photographic outlook, and getting more art and feeling into things. I feel freer and surer of myself, and know what I want.

In 1937 Heysen was soaking up the challenges of working in a metropolitan centre, and

announced that she would not return to Australia until she could prove herself and find

herself in London: ‘I want to work out my life here … I want to absorb as much as

possible and experiment and learn.’ She praised ‘the education and stimulation’ of

living and working in a cosmopolitan city, and said that she wanted to exhibit there too.

She had indeed come to terms with what Georg Simmel called metropolitan culture’s

‘patina of indifference,’ resolving to rise above it (1902–1903). But like many an artist,

five months later she had no money left and had to head back to Australia. Her last



London self-portrait Down and out in London, 1937 [figure 5], alludes to her

impoverished state, and shows her in modest domestic environs perched on the kitchen

bench, the stove close by and laundry hanging behind her. The luscious greens of her

clothing and the calm, relaxed pose imply that she has found her painting style; her hand

resting on her palette points to the modern colours and areas of broken colour she has

employed in her painting.

Figure 5, Nora Heysen, Down and out in London, 1937, oil on canvas, 55.0 x 40.0 cm, South Australian Government Grant 1994, Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide.

Nora’s work had changed, she had responded to the anonymity and fluidity of life in the

metropolis, immersed herself in art and, in the process, confronted her own style. At



times this was painful, as she wrote home in May 1936: ‘It is funny in Australia I had a

surfeit of praise, here I get nothing but adverse criticisms and jolts in all directions. Pity

they couldn’t be mixed a little more to even things out.’

She came back and painted a loose, confident and assertive Self-portrait in 1938 [figure

6]. By early 1939 she won the Archibald Prize for her portrait Madame Elink

Schuurman; a goal she had set herself in London. Then in 1942 she won the Royal

South Australian Society of Arts Melrose Prize for the second time for her painting

Figure 6, Nora Heysen, Self-portrait, 1938, oil on canvas laid on board, 39.5 x 29.5cm, purchased 2011 with funds from Philip Bacon, AM, through the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation,

Queensland Art Gallery © Lou Klepac.



Motherhood. In 1943 she was appointed as an official war artist. None of that would

have occurred without the impetus of the liberating cosmopolitan experience in London.

Hilda Rix’s world, on the other hand, had been turned upside down by events of the

First World War. When she returned to Australia in late June 1918, she was a war

widow. She married Major George Matson Nicholas in 1916 in London, but he died

near the battlefield five weeks later. While overseas, she also lost her sister from enteric

fever, then her mother; and came close to personal despair. However, she brought back

an extraordinary cache of paintings and drawings which, when shown in Melbourne and

Sydney, were extremely well received by the critics. The Age critic commented on 12

November 1918 on ‘the influence of modern French impressionism in their fearless

handling of sunlight.’ On the same day, the Argus noted her ‘high accomplishment in

colour and composition,’ while the Sydney Morning Herald observed on 11 June 1919

that ‘her style is forcible and direct, her figures were full of character, her drawing virile

in it certainty and boldness of effect.’ Her Paris work became her high water mark.

Feeling obliged to honour the memory of her late husband, her work thereafter pursued

a more national agenda, and was uneven.

The key impetus to change in Rix Nicholas’s Paris work and Heysen’s London work

was the character of the metropolis, the alienation and cultural dislocation it initially

produced, and how each artist responded with cosmopolitan openness to new ways.

Like Raymond Williams, Angela Woollacott points to how the emotions of strangeness

and alienation associated with migration to the metropolis are central to the emergence

of cultural modernism in the work of expatriate women. In her view (2001: 212),

women artists from the colonies who embraced cosmopolitanism contributed

significantly to metropolitan culture. But it was much more than that. Rix Nicholas and

Heysen each brought back from ‘the frontier’ modern work that was testament to their

time away. Travel, and living and working in the metropolis had facilitated artistic shifts

of style, but for each a world war intervened. Following the First World War, Rix

Nicholas though was back in Paris from 1924–1927, and after the Second World War,

Heysen was back in Britain: Liverpool then London in 1948. Each was between nations,

enriched and transformed by working at the ‘frontiers’ of modernism, their art produced

there integral to Australian modernism.



Reference List

Alomes, S. 1999, When London Calls: The Expatriatism of Australian Creative Artists to Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

‘Art Exhibition’ 1918, Age, 12 November. Batchen, G. 2007, ‘From Elsewhere,’ in Love it and Leave It, (ed.) N. Latham. National Portrait Gallery,

Canberra. Benjamin, R. 2003, Orientialist Aesthetics: Art, Colonialism and French North Africa 1880–1930.

University of California Press, Berkeley. Blazwick, 1. 2001, ‘Century City,’ in Century City: Art and Culture in the Modern Metropolis, (ed.) I.

Blazwick. Tate Modern, London: 8–15. Blunt, A. and Dowling, R., Home. Routledge, London, 2006. Brockington, G. 2009, ‘Introduction: Internationalism and the Arts’ in Internationalism and the Arts in

Britain and Europe at the Fin de Siecle, (ed.) G. Brockington. Peter Lang, Bern: 1–26. Calhoun, C. 2008a, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism,’ Nations and Nationalism, vol. 14, no. 3: 427–48. _____ 2008b, ‘Cosmopolitanism in the Social Imaginary,’ Daedalus, no. 3: 105–14. Cuddy-Keane, M. ‘Modernism, Geopolitics, Globalisation,’ Modernism/Modernity, vol. 10, no. 3: 539–

58. Galbally, A. 2004, ‘Reflected Selves: Australian Expatriate Artists in an Edwardian World,’ in The

Edwardians: Secrets and Desires. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. Gray, A. 2004, ‘The Edwardians,’ in The Edwardians: Secrets and Desires. National Gallery of Australia,

Canberra. Hans Heysen Papers, MS 5073, National Library of Australia. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. 1999, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics

and Culture. Polity Press, Cambridge. Jones, A. and Stephenson, A. 1999, ‘Introduction,’ in Performing the Body/Performing the Text, (eds) A.

Jones & A. Stephenson. Routledge, London: 1-10. Jordan, C. 1994, ‘Designing Women: Modernism and its Representation in Art in Australia,’ in Strange

Women: Essays in Art and Gender (ed.) J. Hoorn. Melbourne University Press, Carlton: 28–37. Meecham, P. and Julie Sheldon, 2001, J. Modern Art: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, London. Meskimmon, M. 2011, Contemporary Art and the Cosmopolitan Imagination. Routledge, Oxon. Papers of Hilda Rix Nicholas, MS 9817, National Library of Australia. Pigot, J. 1993, Capturing the Orient: Hilda Rix Nicholas and Ethel Carrick in the East. Waverley City

Gallery, Victoria. _____ 1994, ‘Les Femmes Orientalistes: Hilda Rix Nicholas and Ethel Carrick in the East,’ in Strange

Women: Essays in Art and Gender, (ed.) J. Hoorn. Melbourne University Press, Carlton: 155–68. Pigot, J. 2000, Hilda Rix Nicholas: Her Life an Art. Mieugunyah Press, Melbourne. ‘Rix Nicholas: Australian Artist’s Return: Notable Successes Abroad’ 1919, Sydney Morning Herald, 11

June. Rix, H. 1914, ‘Sketching in Morocco,’ The Studio, vol. 63: 35–41. Smith, B. 2007, The Formalesque: A Guide to Modern Art and its History. Macmillan, South Yarra. Tickner, L. 2000, Modern Life and Modern Subjects: British Art in the Early Twentieth Century. Yale

University Press, New Haven. Williams, R. 1992, ‘The Metropolis and the Emergence of Modernism,’ in Modernism/Postmodernism

(ed.) P. Brooker. Longman, London: 82–94. Wilson, S. 2002, Paris: Capital of the Arts 1900–1968, Royal Academy of the Arts, London. ‘Work of Mrs Rix Nicholas: Paintings of Distinction’ 1918, Argus, 12 November. Woollacott, A. 2001, To Try Her Fortune in London. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

the ‘frontier’ speaks back: two australian artists working

Documents